Utilitarianism

[Magic Man]

"Every person on the planet has the goal of being happy. Generally people are at their happiest when the people around them are also happy. So, the best way to achieve happiness for ouselves is to help others be happy, or at least not do things that make them unhappy. Also, if I do something nice for someone else, there is a greater chance that that person will do something nice for me in the future. If I want you to respect me, the best option I have is to respect you to gain what I want. There is no higher power involved, just common sense."

I made this assertion in another thread, and it was described as Utilitarianism. Is that true, and what is Utilitarianism? Also, it was suggested that there are severe difficulties with this point-of-view. Do you agree with that suggestion or disagree? Do you generally agree with the quote?

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, it's utilitarianism. The idea is that the right thing to do in any particular circumstance is to maximize the happiness for the greatest number of people. That is, "happiness" is considered to be the ultimate good, and the right thing to do is maximize happiness. Our ethical work consists in two things: (1) determining what the ultimate good is; and (2) determining the means to maximize that good in any particular circumstance. For most utilitarians, (1) is happiness.

The main problem with utilitarianism is that our intuitions sometimes don't mesh with it. Sometimes the right thing flies in the face of what makes people happy. Another problem is determining what exactly the ultimate good is. Honestly, is happiness the ultimate good? What about other things such as love, hope, justice, etc.? On what basis can a utilitarian judge between proposals for ultimate goods? These are some of the problems that need to be worked out. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not remembering them at the moment.

 

[sandandfoam]

Happiness in my view is unachievable as a goal. It is a by-product. I agree that happiness comes through others.

 

[Khale]

I don't know what Utilitarianism is, but what you described sounds like ideal Christianity minus the worship part of things. You know: treat others as you'd wish to be treated. I do agree with the quote and it is a difficult route to follow. All it takes is one person to start making demands forcefully. If you are following this path you should still be amicable towards the person no matter how hard they treat you. It's easy to be walked over.

 

[Willamena]

Utilitarianism is described as "That action is best which procures the greatest happiness of the greatest (number of people)." What you describe is not quite that. What you describe is closer to karma, which sees life like chains of events. To precipitate chains of 'good' you need only do good.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, it's utilitarianism. The idea is that the right thing to do in any particular circumstance is to maximize the happiness for the greatest number of people. That is, "happiness" is considered to be the ultimate good, and the right thing to do is maximize happiness. Our ethical work consists in two things: (1) determining what the ultimate good is; and (2) determining the means to maximize that good in any particular circumstance. For most utilitarians, (1) is happiness.

The main problem with utilitarianism is that our intuitions sometimes don't mesh with it. Sometimes the right thing flies in the face of what makes people happy. Another problem is determining what exactly the ultimate good is. Honestly, is happiness the ultimate good? What about other things such as love, hope, justice, etc.? On what basis can a utilitarian judge between proposals for ultimate goods? These are some of the problems that need to be worked out. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not remembering them at the moment.

I think the problem with the thinking that sometimes the right thing flies in the face of what makes people happy is that you have to look at the big picture. It might make some people a little unhappy for some period of time, but does it add to the overall happiness of the world?

Wouldn't love, hope and justice all go towards happiness? I think of them as being parts of happiness, meaning that happiness is still the ultimate goal, with these as different ways of going about it.

Thank you for the response.

 

[Magic Man]

Happiness in my view is unachievable as a goal. It is a by-product. I agree that happiness comes through others.

Do you think happiness is unachievable at all, or just as a goal?

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you think happiness is unachievable at all, or just as a goal?

Just as a goal

 

[Magic Man]

Just as a goal

Well, how about this: My goal is to be happy. To achieve that, I root for Man United. Bingo! I've now achieved my goal of being happy. :yes:

 

[sandandfoam]

Well, how about this: My goal is to be happy. To achieve that, I root for Man United. Bingo! I've now achieved my goal of being happy. :yes:

And if you are not happy to begin with that will work?

 

[Magic Man]

And if you are not happy to begin with that will work?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but yes, I wasn't happy before the game ended yesterday, or at least I wasn't especially happy, and after the game ended I was a little more than happy.

 

[Fluffy]

Utilitarianism is a vast and complex area of ethics seated in the more general area of Consequentialism.

Consequentialism in general holds that the moral property of an act is dependent solely on its consequences. It aims to capture and treat with rigour the naive assumption that many people make that the consequences matter when we come to decide what to do.

Consequentialism is contrasted with Deontology and Virtue Ethics. Deontological theories argue that the consequences of an action are irrelevant and it is simply that some acts are right and wrong. Many people, for example, think that murder is always wrong regardless of the consequences. Virtue ethics argues that we should live act according to a set of virtues. Here it is not the act or the consequences that are relevant but the degree to which we can be said to hold certain virtues such as, for example, bravery or honor.

Classic Utilitarianism makes the following claims:

• Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
• Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).
• Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
• Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the consequences).
• Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).
• Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).
• Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).
• Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).
• Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, present people, or any other limited group).
• Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).
• Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).

Taken from Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

However, since the formulation of Classic Utilitarianism, almost all utilitarians diverged from some or most of these requirements in order to try and avoid or solve the many problems and rebuttals that have been offered up against it.

Utilitarianism takes its name from the concept of utility which can roughly be thought of as a measure of the happiness of an individual. In esscence, therefore, Utilitarians seek to act in accordance with the Principle of Utility i.e. they seek to maximise the average happiness of everybody.

The most well known proof of the Principle of Utility is that given by John Stuart Mill who is not a classic utilitarian. A reconstruction might look as follows:

1. Utilitarianism is true iff happiness is the one and only thing desirable for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else).
2. The only proof of desirability is desire.
3. Each person desires his own happiness for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else).
4. Hence, happiness, as such, is desired for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else) from the point of view of humanity (= the aggregate of persons).
5. Hence, happiness, as such, is desirable for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else).
6. Happiness is the only thing desired for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else). Other things — such as virtue, health, music, money, and power — can come to be desired for their own sakes, but then they are desired as parts of happiness.
7. Hence, happiness is the only thing desirable for its own sake (and not for the sake of something else).
8. Hence, utilitarianism is true.

Taken from Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy​

This is full of so many difficulties that Mill's reputation has been severely tarnished by it. However, I'll keep this post as a positive account of Utilitarianism and give a negative account later.
​

 

[fantome profane]

"Every person on the planet has the goal of being happy. Generally people are at their happiest when the people around them are also happy. So, the best way to achieve happiness for ouselves is to help others be happy, or at least not do things that make them unhappy. Also, if I do something nice for someone else, there is a greater chance that that person will do something nice for me in the future. If I want you to respect me, the best option I have is to respect you to gain what I want. There is no higher power involved, just common sense."

I made this assertion in another thread, and it was described as Utilitarianism. Is that true, and what is Utilitarianism? Also, it was suggested that there are severe difficulties with this point-of-view. Do you agree with that suggestion or disagree? Do you generally agree with the quote?

I think that what you are describing is more like “enlightened self interest”, that is the idea that you would often do what is good for others because that is in your own self interest. I believe this is often practical but a highly questionable basis for morality. Yes there are many circumstances where in order to increase your own happiness it necessary to increase the happiness of others. But there are also some circumstances where you can increase your own happiness at the expense of others.

Utilitarianism on the other hand would dictate that you would act in such a way that would decrease your happiness if in doing so you would increase the happiness of others by a greater degree. You would act in such a way as to increase your happiness only if it will not decrease the happiness of others (either increasing the happiness of others or not affecting them).

 

[Magic Man]

I think that what you are describing is more like “enlightened self interest”, that is the idea that you would often do what is good for others because that is in your own self interest. I believe this is often practical but a highly questionable basis for morality. Yes there are many circumstances where in order to increase your own happiness it necessary to increase the happiness of others. But there are also some circumstances where you can increase your own happiness at the expense of others.

Utilitarianism on the other hand would dictate that you would act in such a way that would decrease your happiness if in doing so you would increase the happiness of others by a greater degree. You would act in such a way as to increase your happiness only if it will not decrease the happiness of others (either increasing the happiness of others or not affecting them).

I think the key is that I would be happier if everyone is happy. For instance, it doesn't help me at all for gay marriage to be legal, but it makes others very happy (while making some others unhappy). The thing is that I believe that those who are unhappy with it will eventually go away, or be a miniscule portion of the population, which then decreases the amount of unhappiness. That might be more Utilitarianism, but it still ends up indirectly making me happy in the end.

 

[Fluffy]

"Every person on the planet has the goal of being happy. Generally people are at their happiest when the people around them are also happy. So, the best way to achieve happiness for ouselves is to help others be happy, or at least not do things that make them unhappy. Also, if I do something nice for someone else, there is a greater chance that that person will do something nice for me in the future. If I want you to respect me, the best option I have is to respect you to gain what I want. There is no higher power involved, just common sense."

One question that ethics tries to answer is "What makes morals true?"

In epistemology, there is the similar question "What makes beliefs true?" The answer is "facts". A fact is a thing in reality that makes our beliefs true. For example, if I have the belief "The Sun is very hot" then if the Sun is really hot then this is a fact which makes my belief true.

Since morals are a subset of beliefs, it must be the case that if they are true, there are facts in reality to make them true.

Again consider for a moment the possibility that there was no fact in reality that the Sun is hot. What would that mean for my belief "The Sun is hot"? Could I reasonably say that the Sun is hot if I was unable to point to a fact in reality which made my belief true? It seems like without a fact, I lose the ability to add compulsion to my belief.

There is another category of beliefs which have no facts in reality that make them true. They are known as opinions. If I say "That is the tastiest chocolate in the world" then there is no fact in reality which can justify this opinion because the tastiness of something cannot be measured. Therefore, my opinion cannot be said to be true.

However, it then seems like if we want morals to be true then they have to point to moral facts. Otherwise, morals are really only opinions and no moral belief can be said to be true.

Consequently, I think your common sense method is insufficient because it lacks the ability to assert any moral truth. It could be used descriptively but you would void the right to say things like "you shouldn't murder". You wouldn't be able to use it normatively. You wouldn't be able to prevent others from doing what you thought of as wrong or at least you would be as justified as trying to stop a person from going to a hip hop concert because you didn't like hip hop.

 

[Magic Man]

Consequently, I think your common sense method is insufficient because it lacks the ability to assert any moral truth. It could be used descriptively but you would void the right to say things like "you shouldn't murder". You wouldn't be able to use it normatively. You wouldn't be able to prevent others from doing what you thought of as wrong or at least you would be as justified as trying to stop a person from going to a hip hop concert because you didn't like hip hop.

There is obviously more to it than just my quote. That doesn't explain everything in detail. The problem then is that, if you murder someone, there's no reason to expect that someone won't murder you, just as there's no reason for someone to expect for someone to respect you if you don't respect them. So, it only makes sense again, assuming you want to continue to live, that you don't murder. It's then a question of living in fear. Living in fear doesn't tend to make people happy, but it would be the consequence of murdering someone.

To the hip hop point, I would still not be justified in stopping a person from going to such a concert because I wouldn't want them to stop me from going to a rock concert. I don't like hip hop, but I like music, or even more generally I like things that make me happy that don't hurt others. That's the part that accounts for my allowing people to go to hip hop concerts (even though it really should be banned ).

 

[Runt]

Utilitarianism is in some ways a form of "tyranny of the majority", as John Stuart Mill once put it. But at the same time, I think it is generally preferable to many alternatives.

The "greatest good for the greatest number" is an ideal that necessitates a cost-benefit approach to life, where a society optimizes the cost-benefit ratio as much as it is able. The supreme ideal, of course, is to maximize benefit and have no cost whatsoever.

However, we do not live in an ideal world---the best of all possible worlds kekekeke---so there is always a cost, even if it is only an opportunity cost. That cost can often be easily found in simple differences in definitions of "greatest good" and "happiness". For instance, different groups of people often disagree about what constitutes a social "good". And if we look at utilitarianism from the perspective of "greatest good" being "happiness", we still have a problem: different things make different people happy, and these things are sometimes contradictory. What if, for instance, I'm a vindictive person who enjoys making others unhappy if it makes me feel righteous and superior? Sadly, there are many people like that in this world. We can all be petty, sometimes, although we're certainly not petty all the time.

If we ignore the aforementioned diversity in the attempt of aiming for kind of "happiness" sought by the majority of society, we probably won't be able to find any majority (i.e. over 1/2 + 1 of the population). And if we aimed for the form of happiness claimed by the greatest number of people in society, I think we'd find that the majority of people prefer other forms of happiness, none of which alone constitute the greatest number, but collectively outnumber the preference of the largest population. We necessarily have a crappy cost-benefit ratio if we accept any one definition, with the "greatest good" not being very great at all because there are still so many unhappy people even if they're in the minority.

Personally, I think the best way to have the "greatest good" is to protect natural and basic human rights---ensure that people do not abuse one another---and then allow for as much liberty as possible. But our society, more and more often, is unwilling to do that, because we want to also legislate people's private lives...

 

[Dunemeister]

Wouldn't love, hope and justice all go towards happiness? I think of them as being parts of happiness, meaning that happiness is still the ultimate goal, with these as different ways of going about it.

Thank you for the response.

You're welcome. But there are still problems with happiness as an ultimate good. First of all, it's quite parochial. It's only in the 20th century or so that it has become something to be considered an absolute good, partly because western societies have become rich enough to make the notion conceivable. And we must still reckon with other ideas of what the ultimate good might be. What if the ultimate good isn't happiness but, say, holiness. Being (or aspiring to be) holy might make you miserable, but for those who hold it to be the ultimate good, that's nothing against it. And for a large segment of humanity, holiness IS the ultimate good, even if it contributes to suffering and misery. So how, as a utilitarian, do we decide between holiness and happiness as ultimate goods? I believe this is a serious, but perhaps not fatal, problem for utilitarianism.

 

[Magic Man]

You're welcome. But there are still problems with happiness as an ultimate good. First of all, it's quite parochial. It's only in the 20th century or so that it has become something to be considered an absolute good, partly because western societies have become rich enough to make the notion conceivable. And we must still reckon with other ideas of what the ultimate good might be. What if the ultimate good isn't happiness but, say, holiness. Being (or aspiring to be) holy might make you miserable, but for those who hold it to be the ultimate good, that's nothing against it. And for a large segment of humanity, holiness IS the ultimate good, even if it contributes to suffering and misery. So how, as a utilitarian, do we decide between holiness and happiness as ultimate goods? I believe this is a serious, but perhaps not fatal, problem for utilitarianism.

It depends on what you mean by holiness. I don't think happiness as a goal is that new. Everyone has always wanted to be happy, they just went about it in different ways. It used to be that life was just generally harder for the majority of people, or a least it meant more work. Some people find pleasure in work, others don't. The others who don't, though, usually understand that it is necessary to survive. For instance, several centuries ago, if you didn't hunt and you were a peasant, you didn't eat.

This theory doesn't imply that one is going to be happy all of the time. We still understand that that can't happen, but some things are necessary evils to gain more happiness in the end.

 

[fantome profane]

There is obviously more to it than just my quote. That doesn't explain everything in detail. The problem then is that, if you murder someone, there's no reason to expect that someone won't murder you, just as there's no reason for someone to expect for someone to respect you if you don't respect them. So, it only makes sense again, assuming you want to continue to live, that you don't murder. It's then a question of living in fear. Living in fear doesn't tend to make people happy, but it would be the consequence of murdering someone.

This sounds like “social contract” morality, and like “enlightened self interest” it is a very practical but very limited form of morality. Both are based on self-interest, trying to rationalize doing good for others based on what the results would be for yourself. I find it interesting reading your posts. It seems like you are drawn to these kind of self-centered rationalizations on an intellectual level, but I also sense from your posts that you are not a selfish person.

Consider the choice not to murder someone. Yes it is true that we live in a society where I benefit from a written or unwritten agreement that we don’t go around killing each other. But that is not the reason I choose not to murder. It is also true that if I were to murder the empathy that I would feel for my victim and for the family of my victim would cause me pain, but this is not the reason I don’t murder. The reason I don’t murder is very simply. It will result in the loss of life and life has an inherent value. It is not about the value to me, or what the consequences will be for me. I find that a lot of moral problems fall right into place if instead of trying rationalize the behaviour on the basis of self interest, you simply remove the self from the equation, or at the very least recognize that the self is no more valuable that anyone else.

For me utilitarianism works as long as you sincerely try to view it from a selfless perspective and sincerely try to take into account what the result would be for all those who could be affected.

But I also think that Runt makes some very good points, there are some definite drawbacks to a strict utilitarian approach. But luckily we don’t have to limit ourselves to one approach.